If it were down to feature lists and price tags, Apple wouldn't be selling very many phones. It seems Apple might be explaining itself in a way that doesn't resonate with you, which is which is fine.

> I am wondering if part of the deal is making sure Apple sticking to x86 and Specifically Intel's x86 CPU on the Mac for at least another 5 years. No ARM or AMD Mac.

I suspect that Apple had a lot of leverage in this negotiation, since they were the main ones interested in using Intel's modems as leverage against Qualcomm. So Intel's modems are more valuable to Apple than they are to other players, including Intel. But I don't know anything.

That implies that Intel has the leverage. Intel's BATNA is to just let the modem IP rot. It's a sunk cost. They can just walk away from the negotiating table, and they'll be choosing to get $0 + ($small * potential of selling to anyone else = $ε) instead of $1B.

Apple's BATNA, meanwhile, is for Qualcomm to steamroll them and force them into expensive concessions across the board, and they're willing to pay through the nose to avoid that. Their choice is between $1B to intel and likely far more than $1B to Qualcomm.

I wish it was just the Internet, but increasingly I have had people complaining about iPhone's prices in Real life, and they are not in the Tech Circle. A few days ago the podcast from Macobserver on Apple's prices had a section on it as well, more people are questioning the prices, especially when they have something else to compare to.

I could paid double the price simply because of iOS. But 3x is a little hard, and I cant explain to friends why is Apple so expensive either.

How do you explain to them that Huawei's own P30 Pro sells for several times what their Honor 9x sells for? Does Huawei need to explain that to the market too? We've seen high spec midrange phones that sold for a fraction of flagship prices for years but Apple has never attempted to go after that part of the market.

And I imagine if you wanted to you could compile a long list of iphone selling points besides privacy. For example, my wife's nearly two year old iphone 8 has a ST Geekbench score that's 50% higher than the Honor 9x (4228 vs 2832). Maybe that's part of why Gazelle will pay more for her phone today ($289, 64 gb) than the 9x retails for.

This punishes users who want to replace their iPhone 7, since Apple simply doesn't make a good phone in that price bracket anymore.

A product is worth more than just the sum of its physical components. The quality of the apps, consistency of end user experience, integration with my other devices, multi-year support and yes commitment to privacy and security are worth $500 to me. And to hundreds of millions of other people.

Otherwise is a Rolex really worth that much more than a Seiko. Or how about a Ferrari versus the new Corvette.

That goes against everything Apple stands for; they will not give up control for any amount of money. The Qualcomm deal was really an emergency outlier.

Absolutely, it is. Of course, it's not the only point of competition, but if it were, I would still pay the additional amount to not be the product.

You think some ceos should be under a covenant that they can't acquire companies the same way that alcoholics shouldn't drink.

Apple has the best mobile processors. How does the Kirin 810 in the Honor 9X compare to Apple's A12 or the upcoming A13?